Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Domestic Violence - No Boys Allowed

This is one of those stories where there's almost nothing to say.

HARRISBURG - The state House of Representatives churns out uncontroversial resolutions every week to commemorate the dead, honor people's achievements, raise awareness of health issues, and recognize things important to Pennsylvania, such as pretzels.

So it took many people by surprise when a resolution designating October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month was derailed Wednesday by Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R., Butler), who claimed it "had a homosexual agenda."

The Western Pennsylvania legislator said he detected that agenda in this phrase: "one in six women and one in 33 men have experienced an attempted or completed rape."

Metcalfe's objection, which under House rules meant the bill was sent back to committee, mystified the bill's sponsor and angered groups that advocate for victims of domestic violence and for gay rights.

"His comments show incredible insensitivity about what domestic violence is, combined with bigotry against lesbians, gays, bisexual, and transgendered people," said Michael Morrill, executive director of Keystone Progress, an advocacy group in Harrisburg.

Morrill said he was urging supporters to send faxes and e-mails to Metcalf's office demanding that he apologize to Pennsylvanians for his remarks.

Metcalfe, in an interview yesterday, said he opposed the resolution because it went beyond what he considered traditional domestic-violence programs that help battered women and children.

"It had language woven through it that brought men into the situation," said Metcalfe, who voted for similar resolutions in the last two years. "I don't support the resolution or funding for groups that go beyond helping women." Pa. lawmaker sees gay agenda in a resolution

This is really remarkable. This guy thinks domestic violence only happens to women. Or, I guess, if a guy is abused in a domestic relationship, it must be a gay guy. Like there was never a cartoon showing the wife with a frying pan in her hand, huh? Like that wouldn't hurt.

Victims' advocacy groups say men are victims of domestic violence in both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. There were 835,000 reported cases of male victims of domestic violence in the nation last year, according to the resolution.

And look, that's reported cases. I imagine things have to get pretty bad before you call the cops to tell them your wife or girlfriend is beating you up. I'd guess that number to be one to ten percent of actual incidents, what do you think?

Metcalfe says he voted for the resolution in the past because he did not notice references to sexual violence against men.

The measure's sponsor, Rep. John Siptroth (D., Monroe), said the language of this year's bill had been modified only slightly and called Metcalfe's action "completely out of line."

"There was no mention at all about homosexual activity," Siptroth said. "It could be that a [victimized] partner was a man, but it did not promote that."

Groups that provide domestic-violence counseling, housing, and other support services for victims said they were discouraged that Metcalfe would block the resolution at a time when the state budget crisis had left some shelters with empty freezers and resorting to "blast" e-mails to round up toilet paper.

Judy Yupcavage, spokeswoman for the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said there were 50 fatalities statewide in domestic-violence cases.

The Victim Outreach Intervention Center in Evans City last year served 2,300 men and women in and around Metcalfe's district. Director Elizabeth Clark-Smith said her group had seen a spike in such violence recently. She said she was discouraged that the region's representative appeared "completely confused" about the issue.

I'd have to agree with that carefully worded statement. "Completely confused." It has a nice ring to it, you don't get to use a clear phrase like that too often.

Metcalfe said that although the resolution was symbolic and did not authorize any funding, it could be seen as promoting groups that serve homosexuals.

Siptroth said he hoped the House would consider the resolution in the next two weeks, in time for him to participate in an event with a domestic-violence services group in his district. He said he wanted to present the group with a copy of the approved resolution.

Metcalfe, who has served in the House for a decade, said he looked forward to debating the issue on the House floor. Of Morrill's apology campaign, the lawmaker said, "Tell him, don't hold his breath."

I really hope this shapes up into a big battle, that his fellow nuts join him in insisting that a Domestic Violence Awareness Month promotes homosexuality. I want to hear people talking about this.

I've come to the conclusion that anonymous trolldom is related to or an example of bullying. In my experience, bullies abuse others and ruin whatever fun they are having, but view themselves essentially as victims, thus justifying their abusive behavior.

The federal government resorted to bullying tactics when it ordered an investigation of Humana -- one of the country's biggest private insurers -- for its decision to send customers a letter alerting them about pending health reform legislation, a leading Republican charged Wednesday.

U.S. health officials launched the probe after the Louisville-based company mailed a letter to patients enrolled in its Medicare Advantage plans -- private options that replace standard Medicare -- warning that President Obama's health overhaul could eliminate important benefits of the program.

Humana said in its letter that if Medicare Advantage funding gets cut, "millions of seniors and disabled individuals ... could lose many of the important benefits and services that make Medicare Advantage health plans so valuable."

Republican Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell blasted the investigation of Humana on Wednesday, calling it a "federal gag order" that seeks to silence a health provider that disagrees with the administration. McConnell said he's called for a complete legal justification of the probe.

"This is so clearly an outrage," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "For explaining to seniors how legislation might affect them, the federal government has now issued a gag order on that company, and any other company that communicates with clients on the issue, telling them to shut up -- or else.

"This is precisely the kind of thing Americans are worried about with the administration's health care plan. They're worried that government agencies which were created to enforce violations even-handedly will instead be used against those who voice a different point of view," he said.

actually, contributing to campaigns doesn't forfeit the right to free speech

McConnell wasn't the first to bring this up

I posted a paste from the WSJ which gives more detail on Sept 22 at 12:23pm

they are two issues here:

1. Humana's mailing was absolutely correct. The CBO reported yesterday that millions of seniors will lose their Medicare Advantage benefits if the Baucus bill is enacted. Humana acted in the best interest of these seniors when they informed them of this.

2. Max Baucus should be convinced to resign immediately. This type of Putinesque suppression of free speech by the government has no place in a democratic society. A bipartisan campaign of letters should be sent urging him to step down.

Once again (and again and again)"Anonymous" Troll, you steer "discussion" away from the topic: "Domestic Violence..." to your unending attacks on President Obama and the current health "debate". You are selfish and self-centered; I can only imagine your play activities in the sandbox, bullying all the other kids to get your own way.Go find your own sandbox to play in!

Domestic Violence is an epidemic in this world, and we do too little to stop it. Violence against children is even less spoken of, and even defended and promoted by some. Marginanized populations (people of color, lgbt people, people with disabilities, undocumented aliens, among others) have even less access to resources because they must remain invisible.

The topic, my dear, was domestic violence, not trollish whining. Violence against people who are dependent upon you is even more reprehensible than bullying of strangers and acquaintances.

This is interesting. On September 23, the NY Times reported that Obama has adopted a controversial Bush strategy for holding detainees that Obama previously said he wouldn't do. Here's part of the Times article. You can Google for the whole thing. It was written by Peter Baker, I think, and buried in the back of the A section.

'The Obama administration has decided not to seek new legislation from Congress authorizing the indefinite detention of about 50 terrorism suspects being held without charges at at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, officials said Wednesday.

Instead, the administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies."

The article goes on to say that he won't hold them indefinitely without Congressional approval, but, hey, Obama's presidency is young!

Former Virginia governor L. Douglas Wilder said today he will not endorse Democrat Creigh Deeds in the race for governor. Wilder held separate meetings with both candidates earlier this week.

"The requests, made of me, have been to endorse Mr. Deeds, the Democratic Candidate, for Governor," Wilder wrote today in a released statement. "I refrain from doing so and will leave that choice to the voters."

The independent Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MEDPAC) found that MA payments in 2006 totaled 118% of the fee for service (FFS) of traditional Medicare. MEDPAC predicts MA payments will run 114% over FFS payments in 2009. That's $12 billion more in 2009 for Medical Advantage payments than for traditional Medicare, for the exact same services.

"Responding to an attempt by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) to restore $113 billion in proposed cuts to Medicare Advantage, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said the program is a major reason that Medicare is heading for bankruptcy. He charged that Republicans were giving false hopes to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries "that we can keep on paying for something that is clearly unaffordable and is going to contribute to the bankruptcy of Medicare.""

Senator Conrad should tell McConnell and Humana that the US Treasury is not their personal pocketbook and remind them that the same services will be rendered for 14%-18% lower cost to taxpayers under Medicare than under Medicare Advantage.

This whole McConnell/Humana debacle is another big reminder that the GOP is working in cahoots with private insurers to JUST SAY NO to much needed health care reform.

Tomorrow starts Banned Books week- no doubt,a holiday that Anon celebrates. I am hopeful that I will be meeting Judy Blume and Lois Lowry tomorrow- authors of books that are frequently challenged or banned.

Hey, Citizen, if you're reading, here's another unprovoked and baseless insult by a TTFer. Keeping count?

Being a libertarian and an evangelical, I would tend to be more tolerant of diverse thought than the typical TTFer. I read everything I can get my hands on. I especially enjoy reading ideas I disagree with and urge others to do the same. I think the free exchange of ideas is what makes America string and our opponents weak. TTFers, on the other hand, regularly urge me to not express any opinion that does not bolster the gay agenda.

TTF, you will recall, favors banning anything put out by PFOX from public schools, not to mention any expression, written or oral, of religious belief.

If any of you want to redeem youself and support freedom of expression, write to Max Baucus, currently taking a page out of Vladimir Putin playbook and threatening to destroy those who oppose his healthcare proposals.

"On Tuesday, the Congressional Budget Office director told Mr. Baucus's committee that its plan to cut $123 billion from Medicare Advantage—the program that gives almost one-fourth of seniors private health-insurance options—will result in lower benefits and some 2.7 million people losing this coverage."

Anon-B

24% of seniors enroll in Medicare Advantage. They don't do that because of a slick PR campaign but because it provides benefits that are not, as you say, "exact same services" as regular Medicare. If regular Medicare provided the same services at a lower cost, seniors would glady drop Medicare Advantage. But that's not happening, for obvious reasons.

Still, Baucus has managed to overshadow that debate with a much more serious issue: should our government be free to imitate Vladimir Putin by harassing and destroying those who disagree with them as Baucus is seeking to do?

Thank heaven the CBO has maintained its integrity and faced down this Senator who has abused the authority the voters bestowed on him.

Baucus should resign. If he doesn't this will be settled at the ballot box which would be another hopeful for sign for Republicans who appear to be on the way to regaining control of Congress.

Whether Republicans take control or not, it's clear that Dems will never have a better position than they have right now to push their agenda.

Touchy, touchy, touchy "Anonymous" - you sure can dish it out but can't take it.

Your insults and snide put-downs of those you have contempt for are unparalleled. And your claim that being a "a libertarian and an evangelical, I would tend to be more tolerant of diverse thought than the typical TTFer." is pathetically laughable.

When it comes to GLBT people, where is your self-proclaimed "tolerance" and "free exhannge of ideas" when all of your efforts are aimed at dehumanizing and purposely misrepresenting other people?

Evangelicals have lost all credibility when it comes to tolerance. After all...when you have a strangle-hold on "truth", what room does that give you for tolerance for anybody else who doesn't subscribe to your particular beliefs?

Your comment: "TTFers, on the other hand, regularly urge me to not express any opinion that does not bolster the gay agenda." belies your claim of tolerance. Your persistent claims that the "gay agenda" (please explain that term...is it anything like the evangelical agenda?) is the basis of the existence of this blog site is so far-fetched that questions about your ability to frame any argument not based on your on insidious homophobia are warranted.

"Libertarian"?...don't think so. You obviously do not subscribe to the credo of "Live and let live" so that claim is a farce.

Andrea- not anonSorry but I do not make baseless comments. Susan Jamison wrote(badly) the letter- on behalf of the Showerheads in one of their many incarnations - sent to parents misusing the directories of some MCPS schools. She was also a "force" behind PABBIS- a book challenging and banning group. I therefore say that Anon is a supporter of such things. Given the number of Anons- I think I am more in the right.

"Sorry but I do not make baseless comments. Susan Jamison wrote(badly) the letter- on behalf of the Showerheads in one of their many incarnations - sent to parents misusing the directories of some MCPS schools. She was also a "force" behind PABBIS- a book challenging and banning group. I therefore say that Anon is a supporter of such things.

I don't remember any anon defending book banning. I think maybe Theresa expressed age-appropriateness of some material but that's not exactly the same.

So, someone who supports book banning also oppose the genderless discrimination bill and so all people who opposed the bill also support book banning?

This false association game is typical of propagandists and, yes, baseless. Indeed, Jim here once wrote a post denouncing such tactics.

Just think of the wackos who support the same causes as TTFers: Squeaky Fromme, the Unabomber, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, the ACORN gang, Van Jones, Michelle Obama....

Anonymous, helpful soul that he is, gives another example of my thesis that bullies essentially view themselves as victims. In much the same way, economic bullies view the government as aiding poor people in oppressing the wealthy.

Electronic bullying is a pale shadow of the topic of this post, which is domestic violence and the length that a Pennsylvania legislature will go to in gay-baiting, even to the point of denying such violence.

Abusers almost always feel justified in their abuse. The basic argument is that the victim is just 'not right.'

"Touchy, touchy, touchy "Anonymous" - you sure can dish it out but can't take it."

I actually don't care if they insult me. I was responding to your allegations of a several days ago that I caused the incivility. The point is, I was simply participating in a practice intiated by TTFers. I think I made my point.

"Your insults and snide put-downs of those you have contempt for are unparalleled."

True, I'm better at it. Bullies like those at TTF often get a nasty surprise when the object of their abuse can one-up them.

"And your claim that being a "a libertarian and an evangelical, I would tend to be more tolerant of diverse thought than the typical TTFer." is pathetically laughable."

The delusional often laugh to themselves in the corner. Liberals are the one who started the "politically correct" movement years ago and who are always trying to suppress any speech that they view as deleterious to their goals.

"When it comes to GLBT people, where is your self-proclaimed "tolerance" and "free exhannge of ideas" when all of your efforts are aimed at dehumanizing and purposely misrepresenting other people?"

While I don't favor making them a protected or governmentally recognized class, I'm completely in favor of allowing to do what they want as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

"Evangelicals have lost all credibility when it comes to tolerance. After all...when you have a strangle-hold on "truth", what room does that give you for tolerance for anybody else who doesn't subscribe to your particular beliefs?"

While evangelicals have certain firmly held beliefs, they never discourage anyone from expressing theirs. Don't you have any convictions about the truth?

The distinction with liberal secularists is that the secularists try to keep those who disagree with them from disseminating their views.

"Your comment: "TTFers, on the other hand, regularly urge me to not express any opinion that does not bolster the gay agenda." belies your claim of tolerance. Your persistent claims that the "gay agenda" (please explain that term...is it anything like the evangelical agenda?)"

Well, I think family groups have an agenda. What's wrong with that?

"is the basis of the existence of this blog site is so far-fetched that questions about your ability to frame any argument not based on your on insidious homophobia are warranted."

Calling those who don't favor the normalization of homosexuality "phobic" is propaganda.

Fear is not the equivalent of standards.

""Libertarian"?...don't think so. You obviously do not subscribe to the credo of "Live and let live" so that claim is a farce."

What's the matter Anon, did you skip the op ed pages of the WaPo this morning? Far from Robert proving any point of yours, you come here day after day and prove Gerson's point over and over.

"Banish the Cyber-Bigots

...It is a disorienting atmosphere in which information is difficult to verify or critically evaluate, the rules of discourse are unclear, and emotion -- often expressed in CAPITAL LETTERS -- is primary. User-driven content on the Internet often consists of bullying, conspiracy theories and racial prejudice. The absolute freedom of the medium paradoxically encourages authoritarian impulses to intimidate and silence others. The least responsible contributors see their darkest tendencies legitimated and reinforced, while serious voices are driven away by the general ugliness.

Ethicist Clive Hamilton calls this a "belligerent brutopia." "The Internet should represent a great flourishing of democratic participation," he argues. "But it doesn't. . . . The brutality of public debate on the Internet is due to one fact above all -- the option of anonymity. The belligerence would not be tolerated if the perpetrators' identities were known because they would be rebuffed and criticized by those who know them. Free speech without accountability breeds dogmatism and confrontation."

This destructive disinhibition is disturbing in itself. It also allows hatred to invade respected institutional spaces on the Internet, gaining for these ideas a legitimacy denied to fringe Web sites. After the Bernard Madoff scandal broke, for example, major newspaper sites included user-generated content such as "Find a Jew who isn't Crooked" and "Just another jew money changer thief" -- sentiments that newspapers would not have printed as letters to the editor. Postings of this kind regularly attack immigrants and African Americans, recycle centuries of anti-Semitism and deny the events of the Holocaust as a massive Jewish lie.

Legally restricting such content -- apart from prosecuting direct harassment and threats against individuals or incitement to violence -- is impossible. In America, the First Amendment protects blanket statements of bigotry. But this does not mean that popular news sites, along with settings such as Facebook and YouTube, are constitutionally required to provide forums for bullies and bigots. As private institutions, they are perfectly free to set rules against racism and hatred. This is not censorship; it is the definition of standards.

Some online institutions, such as The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, screen user comments before posting them. Others, such as The Post and The Wall Street Journal, rely on readers to identify objectionable content -- a questionable strategy because numbness to abusiveness and hatred on the Internet is part of the challenge.

Whatever the method, no reputable institution should allow its publishing capacity, in print or online, to be used as the equivalent of the wall of a public bathroom stall.

The exploitation of technology by hatred will never be eliminated. But hatred must be confined to the fringes of our culture -- as the hatred of other times should have been. "

despite the continual slander of TTFers, I never been guilty of either and I've never entered a comment here that even vaguely suggests either

it's true that I don't affirm the normalcy of homosexuality and I realize that your thinking has become so warped that you think that view is the equivalent of racism but I don't see Gerson agreeing with you

as far as "bullying", I don't possess any advantage that would open me to that charge: you guys outnumber me here and I don't have the same expertise in science that some of you have so if anyone is being bullied, it would be me

I don't think that way though; I think the whole thing is just another rhetorical tactic that you somehow have rationalized as justified

btw, my understanding is that these blogs can be set up to refuse anonymous comments so tell Jim if that's what you want him to do

WHO is the regular Anonymous who posts her? That is the crucial question. Are you saying that all of the "Anonymous" posters are really one person?? If so, he/she/it deserves every opprobriumTTFers are not intolerant of the multi-personality Anonymous...just quizzical about his/her/its ethics and moral compass. The article in the Post cited by Aunt Bea is exactly on target. It seems that Anonymous is uncomfortable when forced to look into the mirror of truth!Diogenes

This is not a suitable justification for calling someone a “deviant.” Period. It also belies the hypocrisy in oft spouted phrases like “love the sinner, hate the sin.” You don’t call people deviants unless you are trying to marginalize and dehumanize them. And that occurs all too frequently here.

If you’re such a stickler for accuracy and numerical averages then you’d have to say that “same sex behavior is outside X standard deviations of the norm.” (I haven’t calculated X yet, you’ll have to do that.) But that doesn’t serve your purpose of demeaning gay people nearly so well, does it?

I have often heard the phrase “I’m just calling spade a spade” when justifying this kind of language, usually right before the go into a rant about the stupidity of being “politically correct.”

The problem with assuming you’re on the “moral high ground” is that you believe you’re justified in throwing stones at everyone else.

"... then you’d have to say that “same sex behavior is outside X standard deviations of the norm.” (I haven’t calculated X yet, you’ll have to do that.)..."

This would be a binomial distribution, to calculate the standard deviation you'd have to know the percentage of individuals who have engaged in "same sex behavior," or however you choose to define the subject.

Everyone for whom English is their native language knows that the word deviant in the way you use it is pejorative.

As I said, far from polite. As we all can see, you revel in your rudeness.

Oh, sweetheart, why don't you start a "Rudeness Pride Day." You could have floats where people go down the street shouting insults at one another, face-slapping instead of face-painting, videos of family members yelling at one another. Be the activist you always wanted to be and organize your community.

I don't affirm the normalcy of homosexuality and I realize that your thinking has become so warped that you think that view is the equivalent of racism but I don't see Gerson agreeing with you

So now Sybil not only put words in my mouth but claims knows about my "thinking" that led me to post Gerson's words for her. Gerson's editorial I cited had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with the Sybil's conduct on line that Gerson rightly calls "destructive disinhibition."

"He calls lgbt people deviants on a regular basis. This is not, by my definition, polite."

Is it accurate though, robert?

I concur with other TTFers. Anon uses the word "deviant" because it has a negative connotation. Words like "variant" or "different" express the idea that homosexuality is less frequent or less usual than heterosexuality, like left-handedness is less frequent than right handedness, without the negative connotation.

Further, Sybil not not only refuses to "affirm the normalcy of homosexuality", but she refuses to accept the normalcy of homosexuality, which has been documented back through the ages as well as throughout nature and across species.

Sybil not only does not accept or affirm this normal variation in nature, but actively seeks to dehumanize LGBT people by continuously speaking of them using a term with negative connotations.

To begin with, Anon-B, one of the regular anonymous posters was wrong when she said Gerson's article about racist and anti-semitic comments being posted on blogs anonymously applied here. No such comments have been posted here, in my recollection.

As for the term "deviant", it's a factual description of homosexuality. The dictionary doesn't say it is pejorative but when facts tend to be pejorative, they are so in the eye of the beholder. It's really a dodge to argue that a behavior is acceptable and then to refuse to even address anyone who calls it unacceptable when most consider it such.

I didn't point the phrase at any particular individual but at a behavior.

Perhaps some uneducated people here think the term is pejorative per se because it sounds close to "devious". Whether it is or not, however, is not the concern of someone who doesn't affirm the behavior as normal.

If you think it's normal, why is it so important to try to get everyone who disagrees with you to keep it to themselves?

she said Gerson's article about racist and anti-semitic comments being posted on blogs anonymously applied here. No such comments have been posted here, in my recollection.

The reason I posted part of Gerson's editorial had nothing to do with racism or antisemitic speech or homosexuality. I posted it because Gerson has been frequently cited by the Anons and now he was discussing the disinhibiting effect of anonymity on blog comments. He was talking about all of you.

I said:

Gerson's editorial I cited had ... everything to do with the Sybil's conduct on line that Gerson rightly calls "destructive disinhibition."

The disinhibition of the Anons by their refusal to pick an alias causes many of you to say hurtful, destructive things about LGBT people. If you Anons fail to differentiate yourselves, you're all the same person to Vigilance readers. Our readers can tell Citizen from Diogenes from Aunt Bea, yet we're all anonymous.

I didn't point the phrase at any particular individual but at a behavior.

First, "deviant" or "deviants" is not a phrase and second, over the years Anon/Sybil has used the term repeatedly to dehumanize LGBT people, as follows:

Unless otherwise noted, each of these comments was left by "Anonymous."

IMHO, what Gerson was talking about, "destructive disinhibition," is clearly displayed in these comments that were posted anonymously on Vigilance, morning, noon and night.

Anonymous comments over the years here at Vigilance may not be directed at "...at any particular individual..." (except, of course, the one above about Robert and the too numerous personal attacks on TTF commenters) but it's clear, the comments noted above are not directed at "...a behavior..," but at groups of individuals.

Perhaps some uneducated people here think the term [deviant] is pejorative

< eye roll >

So tell us, Anon, specifically, which of the comments above that used the term DEVIANT do you think were not meant to "disparage or belittle" LGBT people and their allies?

"The disinhibition of the Anons by their refusal to pick an alias causes many of you to say hurtful, destructive things about LGBT people."

Gerson didn't say a thing about picking an alias. You're an anonymous poster.

If the phrase "deviant" is used to describe LBGs as a whole it is only as they are defined by their behavior. It's the same behavior that is both deviant and makes them an LBG by definiton. Other than that behavior, the term is not narrowed down to any individual.

Basically what you're saying and what your comrades here have always said is that to judge this behavior as deviant is to judge individuals.

I proudly remember you calling me 'a little bald monkey' at one point; or was that a previous troll.

You're rude, and defend your rudeness by claiming it to be truth.

Don't take that tactic. Own the rudeness, take pride in your impolite behavior. Claim that it is evidence of your strength, not the weakness of those who would be 'politically correct.' Such would be so much more clear, and honest.

Excuse me, you did not answer the question: So tell us, Anon, specifically, which of the comments above that used the term DEVIANT do you think were not meant to "disparage or belittle" LGBT people and their allies?

That's because the term was intended to "disparage or belittle LBGT people and their allies" every time it was used. In fact it's why you continue to use that pejorative term.

Gerson didn't say a thing about picking an alias. You're an anonymous poster.

As I pointed out, other anonymous posters here are Diogenes and Citizen and a few others like RT and Venus. The difference is, nobody can tell the "Anonymous" commenters from one another, but everybody can tell Aunt Bea from Citizen, etc. We are anonymous but accountable for our prior comments, a concept that seems to elude you. I've never once said "That was another Aunt Bea," and IMHO, the first time you pulled the "That was another Anon" stunt, it was old.

"I proudly remember you calling me 'a little bald monkey' at one point; or was that a previous troll."

I don't remember anybody using that phrase. Doesn't sound like something I would have said.

"You're rude, and defend your rudeness by claiming it to be truth.

That's because the term was intended to "disparage or belittle LBGT people and their allies" every time it was used. In fact it's why you continue to use that pejorative term."

You guys come here and defend deviancy and then get offended if someone calls it what it is?

That's just hypocritical. First society grants the freedom to engage deviancy then, that not being enough, liberals expect everyone to find a nicer term for it.

"the first time you pulled the "That was another Anon" stunt, it was old."

I've never said that unless it were true. As I think I've told you, I don't care that much but was just trying to help out.

Gerson, who has a right to his opinion, was talking about anon-Bs as much as anons:

"The belligerence would not be tolerated if the perpetrators' identities were known because they would be rebuffed and criticized by those who know them. Free speech without accountability breeds dogmatism and confrontation."

He favors people not commenting unless their identities are known and would include the various cutesie aliases as anonymous.

"Aunt Bea" IS and will be held accountable for everything she says on this blog. Anonymi refuse to be accountable by all using the same alias and therefore are breeding "dogmatism and confrontation" here day after day, year after year.

I urge you all to heed Gerson's advice. Stand up and be accountable for your speech here.

Every Vigilance reader knows what comments I have made and can hold me accountable for them. No one, not even the Anons, can tell one "Anonymous" from another and they use the "That was some other Anon" to avoid accountability for their comments. Sybil acts as if accountability is a joke and has gone through probably 50 or more aliases over the years, avoiding it.